As a smoker, I know my smoke, depending on wind direction when I'm on the back porch, might blow over the fence and into my neighbor's yard where little kids are playing. And I know it does them no good to get even a whiff of my second-hand smoke. At the same time, I put up with the kids' screeching and shouting and I tolerate them stomping all over my front lawn when they're throwing baseballs and footballs. So I guess we're even.

i'm not a smoker, but i thought this went too far. i heard on the radio this law would not be illegal to smoke on the sidewalk, but parks, parking lots, fields and outdoor seating areas are off limits? i don't see how someone could afford to smoke, they are always jacking up the prices. then with the cost of everything else going up, yikes!

donw - there is no possible way that your shs drifting over the fence will cause any medical problems for your neighbor's kids. Just not possible - the smoke disipates into the air. They've proved already (countless studies) that even shs in bars & restaurants is so disipated, there is no possible risk attached. It's all in the minds of the antis & nannys & they just don't like the smell. If all these antis did some research they'd realize that they are exposed to over 50,000 known carcinagens daily - not counting shs. (And, the epa declared shs a carcinagen before the studies were even done, and has since been proven otherwise in courts). Life is a crap shoot - nobody gets out alive, but nobody ever died or got sick from shs.

The regulation of the personal habit of smoking, including new
legislative moves in San Francisco to ban cigarettes in private homes,
and its enforcement by an eager cadre of state snoops and snitches,
represents nothing more than a move on behalf of big brother towards
the
complete subjugation and shackling of the individual. To this end,
smoking is healthier than fascism.

Two new developments today have once again brought this issue into
focus
and the true agenda behind it needs to be exposed.

In France, a nation once noted as being rich in tobacco connoisseurs,
175,000 "cigarette police"
have been
given the task of randomly snooping around offices, schools, factories
and any other "public spaces" in order to sniff out flouters of a new
total ban on smoking.

In San Francisco California, a city ordinance described as "the most
stringent tobacco regulation in America"
would ban smoking everywhere, including private
homes and apartments, sparing only large detached family homes - and
if
they squeeze this one through expect those homes to be targeted next.

This is not a debate about the dangers of passive smoking, we all know
smoking is bad for us and those around us. On an individual level,
freedom includes the right to do dumb things and whether others should
be subject to our vices comes down to two questions, is fascism more
unhealthy for a society than passive smoking and does the government
really care about your health?

Dare I suggest that western governments raining down depleted uranium
in
all corners of the world, spraying chemtrails in our skies, playing
Dr.
Frankenstein with our food, drugging us into oblivion with
psychotropic
poison pills, shooting x-rays to expose our naked bodies, and
injecting
us with toxic vaccines really care about our physical well-being?

Do an elite that openly advocate culling the majority of the world's
population

really want to put a stop to cancer?

The answer is no, so why the transatlantic obsession to have us stub
out
our cigarettes?

It's all about control, it's all about letting you know who the bosses
are. If the government can regulate personal habits and behavior,
what's
next? If the state is so concerned about our good health as they would
have you believe, why not use the latest scientific advancements to
remove that nasty aggressive gene that causes so much unhappiness?
Well,
you're causing those around you distress and harming their health so
why
not? Are your political opinions a mental illness? Are they harming
society? Perhaps we should ban certain types of "free" speech that is
offensive to others.

Many are the studies and facts that tie second hand smoke to sickness and disease.

If you can understand how first-hand smoke kills and maims, why is it such a stretch to understand that the same smoke with it's active ingredients can cause great bodily harm to a second person, a person not the primary inhaler ?

Personally, I think all your 'scientific defenses' are a cover for the fact that you do not want to be told to modify your behavior so as to be made considerate of people other than yourself.

The world does not revolve around your desires, Starling. There is a legal maxim known as 'the greater good'.
You have to consider the effect of your actions upon other people.

Besides, only my wife will enjoy the weight of my closely shorn cajones in the soft grasp of her silky hands.

I'll just sit back and let you do your own damage.

Besides, now that everyone knows the depth you're willing to go to research people you detest, I'm sure some of these people would kinda take that personal when you start slapping your lies about them up on Chris' site.

And judging from the dialouge, you're not exactly a fan favorite, huh? lol

I'm now comfortable that what you type about me is a lie, so I'm just going sit back here with my loving wife who adores and respects and spends thousands and thousands on any whim I may have and will never leave me and we're going to laugh at your pathetically envious attacks towards me and to watch you backpeddle and smokescreen your way out again. and to watch you sink your own boat attacking other posters, while drinking rum together.

I've accomplished what I wanted to do. And you've failed at what you were trying to do.

and I'll have an alibi, I'll be in England for a few weeks mooching off my very sexy and wealthy wife tee hee hee :)

el mahico - bite me. I already know the venom you will spew about anything related to smoking (as does everybody else) - so just go sit quietly in the corner & let the grown-ups talk. And for what it's worth, I've done far more research on those 'studies' than I think you have, or you wouldn't be shooting your mouth off so much. Those 'studies' you refer to, were bogus, cherry-picked, poorly run & thrown out of courts as such. But only after the masses swallowed whole the propaganda the anti's spewed. There is a huge difference, between inhaling a cigarette directly, and the wafting of smoke into air, disipating into the air. Even if you stood right next to a smoker outside, you'd be at no medical risk, other than being annoyed perhaps. If you doubt this, then I challenge you to back you back-ass statements with some facts & prove who died from shs. Show me the data where it says 'cause of death'.....

Also interesting, is that there is more cancer now than ever before in history - and yet, there are fewer smokers now than ever before in history - hmmmmmmmmmm. Ya think maybe something else is causing cancer than shs?? Now run along to your corner.

As for me being 'considerate' - I am very considerate, and will remember your hatrid of smokers so I wont' ever invite you to parties or out to dinner where there will be smokers - see how considerate I am?

You're out of line. I admire rude, crude - politically challenging folk and boat rockers. I like people who think out of the box.

You are none of those.

You're merely a run of the mill abuser who's mastered the ability to obtain multiple user names.

I will NEVER read you or any of your alias'' posts again. The use of that word has marked you forever.

Loser. Just remember Jesus loves you :-) Me? Can't tolerate you and fortunately don't have to .

P.S. since several of your personalities have significant stalking tendencies - have at it. You can say what you like to me knowing all the while that since your name(s) appear ABOVE the posts - I'll never be reading them.

If you're here to tell me it's my fault - you're right. I meant to do it. It was alot of fun. That's why I have this happy smile on my face.

El Mahico, your blind acceptance of studies and statistics designed specifically to further a political agenda make me question your ability to view smoking and other governmental control issues rationally.

A little over 100 years ago absinthe, herion, cocaine and other drugs were all legal in the US. Most were available form Sears. Then prohibitionists came in and slowly got everything banned. Finally people got pissed off and demanded the return of alcohol,

Within the last 30 years a new wave of prohibitionists have targeted my rights, all for the greater good. Seatbelt laws, motorcycle helmet laws and smoking bans have stripped me of personal freedoms. Now we're only a few years away from government mandated dietary controls and likely further reductions in "allowable alcohol" limits.

To hell with your version of the greater good. I live my life making my own decisions and living with the results. Are you afraid of doing the same?

I resent being called the "C" word. I have never asked or expected chris to step in, but that comment pisses me off - it is beyond rude & vulgar & is inexcusable to use on a public forum, in mixed company. I am not faint of heart on swear words - I too, can swear like a trucker - but that "C" word (to me) is far worse than the "F" word. Don't waste your time blathering on about comments I make el mahico - you're dead to me.

el mahico - you hold the honor of being the first person in the world to ever call me the "C" word. This was discussed on TT about McCain's using the "C" word to his wife in public, and I said if my husband ever called me that word, I'd have left him immediately forever. You must be pretty dense if you don't know the difference between 'bite me' & the "C" word. Whatever.

Don't you long for those days when El would whisper "Clarice" into your ear and you and he would sort of snuggle up together on SB and giggle and you'd tell us all how El was...I believe the words you used back then were "cute" and "misunderstood" and how we needed to "appreciate" El's sense of humor, and sweet sentiments of that nature?

Council members said the outdoor ban is in response to complaints about people smoking around children during youth sports games.

What North Royalton needs to do is confine the non-smoking rules to the actual playing areas of parks, playgrounds, etc., not parking lots or outdoor patios of restuarants or places where adults gather.

It's actually very common to have no smoking in places like Pacesetter Park in Sylvania as regards to the playing fields. And my guess this has less to do with any perceived effects of second-hand smoke than smokers discarding their butts on the ground upon completion of their smoke. Same theory holds true for, say, metro parks, or any other area that people with an iota of common sense would want to keep maintained from the effects of irresponsible people who feel compelled to litter at will.

Be careful though - anything that you might suggest to
abridge the 'rights' of smokers to pollute our parks, pollute our lungs, bodies, and children will be perceived as 'lunatic fringe'.

A significant and voluminous report from the Surgeon General has been submitted for the consideration of all the staunch smoker's rights advocates here.

Where is all the commentary ?

This is some serious in-your-face rebuttal that rabid 'smokers rights' people are not used to being confronted with.
Your obviously ignorant, self-serving arguments pale in the light of this report, and many others.

Come on Brian, you challenged me for reports - here they are. Or were you just anxious to get on the 'stomp el bandwagon' ?

What is your response, oh great one ? You too, Clarice. What say you in response to this information ?

Last few times I was out at the Toledo Speedway I wished that they would have had a section for the smokers because there always seems to be someone who won't watch is ash and we'd end up with them falling on us, the smell you can sort of ignore since its outside the it blows aways quickly. Ending up as soneones ashtray isn't acceptable in anyway shape or form though.

I don't think that banning outdoor smoking is right but I do think that its behavior like flipping your ash and butts where ever you please that leads people to think we might need one

By your logic, if we just outlaw cars and go back to horses and buggies, we'd save a whole lot of lives. "If it saves just one life then it's worth it." Let's do that, genius! Along the way, why don't we tax the hell out of coffee, tea, and other stimulants so nobody could afford them either, since they just hype people up and make them nervous and antsy. That causes accidents, too. If we really put our minds to it, we could find a whole lot of things that we could tax to death. Are you overweight, Blowme? Let's tax the hell out of fast foods and other crap that put pounds on people. I've seen guys so fat they can't even get into their cars. That's extremely dangerous when they can't turn the steering wheel fast enough to avoid a collision. "If it saves just one life then it's worth it." What about cell phone usage? They probably kill as many people as beer. Tax the hell out of cell phones! I'll bet you, Blowme, can come up with a long list of things we can tax so nobody will be able to afford them. After all, "If it saves just one life then it's worth it".

We won't have much to work with after you're through, but ""If it saves just one life then it's worth it."

By the way, you don't really sound like a real conservative, Blowme, what with all this prohibition and taxation stuff. That's LIBERAL thinking! You're not going to change your name to ConservativesCanBlowMe, are you?

el mahico - you asked for it (and my apologies to everybody else for repeating info that has already been posted on SB before.) Due to consideration of hogging space, I am only posting a few things - much more to be found at those links I include.)http://www.nycclash.com/CaseAgainstBans/OSHA.html

Though repetition has little to do with "the truth," we're repeatedly told that there's "no safe level of exposure to secondhand smoke."

OSHA begs to differ.

OSHA has established PELs (Permissible Exposure Levels) for all the measurable chemicals, including the 40 alleged carcinogens, in secondhand smoke. PELs are levels of exposure for an 8-hour workday from which, according to OSHA, no harm will result.

Of course the idea of "thousands of chemicals" can itself sound spooky. Perhaps it would help to note that coffee contains over 1000 chemicals, 19 of which are known to be rat carcinogens.
-"Rodent Carcinogens: Setting Priorities" Gold Et Al., Science, 258: 261-65 (1992)

There. Feel better?

As for secondhand smoke in the air, OSHA has stated outright that:

"Field studies of environmental tobacco smoke indicate that under normal conditions, the components in tobacco smoke are diluted below existing Permissible Exposure Levels (PELS.) as referenced in the Air Contaminant Standard (29 CFR 1910.1000)...It would be very rare to find a workplace with so much smoking that any individual PEL would be exceeded."
-Letter From Greg Watchman, Acting Ass't Sec'y, OSHA, To Leroy J Pletten, PHD, July 8, 1997

Indeed it would.

Independent health researchers have done the chemistry and the math to prove how very very rare that would be.

As you're about to see in a moment.

In 1999, comments were solicited by the government from an independent Public and Health Policy Research group, Littlewood & Fennel of Austin, Tx, on the subject of secondhand smoke.

Using EPA figures on the emissions per cigarette of everything measurable in secondhand smoke, they compared them to OSHA's PELs.

The following excerpt and chart are directly from their report and their Washington testimony:

CALCULATING THE NON-EXISTENT RISKS OF ETS

"We have taken the substances for which measurements have actually been obtained--very few, of course, because it's difficult to even find these chemicals in diffuse and diluted ETS.

"Taking the figures for ETS yields per cigarette directly from the EPA, we calculated the number of cigarettes that would be required to reach the lowest published "danger" threshold for each of these substances. The results are actually quite amusing. In fact, it is difficult to imagine a situation where these threshold limits could be realized.

"Our chart (Table 1) illustrates each of these substances, but let me report some notable examples.

"For Benzo[a]pyrene, 222,000 cigarettes would be required to reach the lowest published "danger" threshold.

"At the lower end of the scale-- in the case of Acetaldehyde or Hydrazine, more than 14,000 smokers would need to light up simultaneously in our little room to reach the threshold at which they might begin to pose a danger.

"For Hydroquinone, "only" 1250 cigarettes are required. Perhaps we could post a notice limiting this 20-foot square room to 300 rather tightly-packed people smoking no more than 62 packs per hour?

"Of course the moment we introduce real world factors to the room -- a door, an open window or two, or a healthy level of mechanical air exchange (remember, the room we've been talking about is sealed) achieving these levels becomes even more implausible.

"It becomes increasingly clear to us that ETS is a political, rather than scientific, scapegoat."

In 1993, the federal environmental protection agency said second-hand smoke is harmful. The EPA report stated second-hand smoke "is responsible for approximately 3,000 lung cancer deaths each year in non-smoking adults and impairs the respiratory health of hundreds and thousands of children." Six months later, the tobacco industry filed a lawsuit that challenged the EPA's findings.

The judge's ruling.

Last week, in North Carolina, the federal judge in the case sided with the industry, saying the EPA made serious mistakes five years ago in evaluating the risk of second-hand smoke. In his ruling, Federal District Judge William Osteen said the "EPA publicly committed to a conclusion before research had begun" and the "EPA disregarded information and made findings on selective information."

That, the judge said, put into question the agency's 1993 decision to designate secondhand smoke a Class A carcinogen or a proven cause of cancer in humans. Only 15 other highly reactive substances, including asbestos and radon, are ranked Class A carcinogens.

The EPA report on second-hand smoke was the impetus for hundreds of jurisdictions around the United States to ban smoking in public places, including restaurants, office buildings, and airports. The report also has been used as evidence in lawsuits against the tobacco companies. In a video news release a tobacco executive said the new ruling attacking the EPA report is likely to undercut the basis for future suits claiming injury from second-hand smoke.....(Cont'd.)
****************************************************************************************************http://www.forces.org/evidence/evid/second.htm
(Due to length, I only included the first, small beginning. Reading the entire article & links will show how the public was conned about shs.)

How “public health”, media and the University of Minnesota con you about passive smoke "dangers" – once again - January 5, 2004 -- The ink was not yet dry on the latest piece of trash science on passive smoke, and a few days ago the mass media had already rushed to spread the disinformation all over the world. We refer to the latest “study” by the University of Minnesota on passive smoking, which is reported like this in the first lines of the ABC News article we are linked to: “Researchers at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, found elevated levels of a cancer-causing agent, NNAL, in the urine of nonsmokers after they spent just four hours in a commercial casino. Researchers also found elevated levels of cotinine, a byproduct of nicotine, in the samples. Both NNAL and cotinine are specific to tobacco and were not found in the nonsmokers' urine before their casino visit.”

You need to go no further, as this is already sufficient: the rest is more of the usual anecdotal and rhetorical hate trash, without foundation. Let’s see how “public health”, the mass media and the University of Minnesota con you about passive smoke “dangers” once again. Like most of the productions of the “industry of hate & fear”, this “study” is based on false and distorted information.

Here is, in scientific detail, how mass media and the University of Minnesota conned the public. It is preposterous that those “scientists” who promote junk science studies such as this one are not exposed for the charlatans they really are. Instead, they pass as if they were “scholars” dedicated to saving humanity, and they get big dollars and media credence! The devastating part is that this incredible distortion is not an isolated case, but today it is almost the standard used for the most disparate issues, from pesticides, to plastic toys, to passive smoke, to food. Short of massive financial support from already politically prostrated and fearful target industries, therefore, the only weapon against this perversion is education and political awareness – and we at FORCES are proudly doing our best to perform this long-forgotten public service.

NEW, ENORMOUS STUDY UNMASKS THE ANTISMOKING FRAUD: Environmental tobacco smoke and tobacco related mortality in a prospective study of Californians, 1960-98 - May 19th, 2003 - "The results do not support a causal relation between environmental tobacco smoke and tobacco related mortality, although they do not rule out a small effect. The association between exposure to environmental tobacco smoke and coronary heart disease and lung cancer may be considerably weaker than generally believed." (Con't.)
**************************************************************************************
Video - Michael Crichton on shs (he is a medical doctor as well as an author).http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aGoZ-b1OaW4
***************************************************************************************
The Antismokers Are LYING To You !

They say the EPA found that smoke in a well-ventilated bar causes cancer. The reality is the EPA never even LOOKED at such low levels of exposure, but looked instead at very HIGH levels over periods of 40 years straight and STILL failed normal scientific significance standards!

They say studies show bans won’t hurt the bar/restaurant business.
The reality is those studies gave those results by ignoring noncompliance, overall economic growth, and restaurant degradation to fast food outlets.

They say “tornado winds” are needed to ventilate non-smoking sections. The reality is even mild air movement in a well designed bar moves smoke quite effectively to exhaust vents.

They say “Smoking bans have reduced California’s cancer rate by 14% ”
The reality is California’s total smoking bans began in 1998… having NO effect on cancer rates with a 20-year time lag. The REAL causes of the decrease are 1980s air pollution laws and a changing population base.

They say there’s “a strong societal consensus” for total bans.
The reality is that such consensus only favors decently ventilated non-smoking areas: NOT total government mandated bans imposed on all.

They say non-smokers are being “poisoned” by smokers in bars.
The reality is that NO normal elements of tobacco smoke in a decent bar even approach EPA “Permissible Exposure Limits” of safety.

Why Are They Lying?

Because in 1975 the US and UN were advised that the best way to eliminate smoking was by “fostering an atmosphere where it was perceived that smokers injure those around them, especially their family, infants, and young children”

The Research Defense of the May 17, 2003 British Medical Journal paper by Dr. Geoffrey C. Kabat and me, "Environmental tobacco smoke and tobacco related mortality in a prospective study of Californians, 1960-98" (http://bmj.com/cgi/reprint/326/7398/1057.pdf) is now divided into two parts.

The first part of the Research Defense is my October 10, 2007 paper, "Defending legitimate epidemiologic research: combating Lysenko pseudoscience" in Epidemiologic Perspectives & Innovations 2007, 4:11 (http://www.epi-perspectives.com/content/4/1/11). This 14,000 word peer-reviewed paper can be viewed and/or downloaded as a PDF file. The Abstract of this paper states “This analysis presents a detailed defense of my epidemiologic research in the May 17, 2003 British Medical Journal that found no significant relationship between environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) and tobacco-related mortality. In order to defend the honesty and scientific integrity of my research, I have identified and addressed in a detailed manner several unethical and erroneous attacks on this research. Specifically, I have demonstrated that this research is not "fatally flawed," that I have not made "inappropriate use" of the underlying database, and that my findings agree with other United States results on this relationship. My research suggests, contrary to popular claims, that there is not a causal relationship between ETS and mortality in the U.S. responsible for 50,000 excess annual deaths, but rather there is a weak and inconsistent relationship. The popular claims tend to damage the credibility of epidemiology. In addition, I address the omission of my research from the 2006 Surgeon General's Report on Involuntary Smoking and the inclusion of it in a massive U.S. Department of Justice racketeering lawsuit. I refute erroneous statements made by powerful U.S. epidemiologists and activists about me and my research and I defend the funding used to conduct this research. Finally, I compare many aspects of ETS epidemiology in the U.S. with pseudoscience in the Soviet Union during the period of Trofim Devisovich Lysenko. Overall, this paper is intended to defend legitimate research against illegitimate criticism by those who have attempted to suppress and discredit it because it does not support their ideological and political agendas. Hopefully, this defense will help other scientists defend their legitimate research and combat Lysenko pseudoscience.

The second part is the original September 20, 2006 Research Defense, which is now a separate PDF file on my Scientific Integrity Institute website (http://www.scientificintegrityinstitute.org/Defense092006.pdf). This easily downloadable document provides more details on the early issues related to the British Medical Journal paper than are contained in the new Epidemiologic Perspectives & Innovations paper.

In addition to these two parts, several other sections of Scientific Integrity Institute website contain valuable information supporting the Research Defense. The Documents section (http://www.scientificintegrityinstitute.org/documents.html) contains relevant material from the American Cancer Society, the University of California, magazines, and newspapers. The Publications section (http://www.scientificintegrityinstitute.org/publications.html) contains many relevant epidemiologic publications from me, the American Cancer Society, and others. The Symposium section (http://www.scientificintegrityinstitute.org/symposium.html) contains the Abstracts, PowerPoint slides, and audio lecture files for my June 24, 2006 North American Congress of Epidemiology Symposium “Reassessment of the Long-term Mortality Risks of Active and Passive Smoking.” The Audio/Visual section (http://www.scientificintegrityinstitute.org/audio.html) contains several audio files related to the UC Regents deliberations regarding tobacco industry funding at UC, as well as audio and video files on ETS. The Satire section (http://www.scientificintegrityinstitute.org/satire.html) provides an important satirical perspective on how certain individuals are abusing the scientific method and “Turning Epidemiology into Lysenko Pseudoscience.” All of these sections are important for anyone interested in fully understanding the validity and significance of the May 17, 2003 BMJ paper.
***********************************************************************************************************
AND - ESPECIALLY FOR EL MAHICO (drum roll..............).....The STUDIES ON SHS (makes more visual sense when you look at it on the link with the charts).

Marcia Angell of the prestigious New England Journal of Medicine has said, “As a general rule of thumb we are looking for a relative risk of 3 or more” before accepting a paper for publication. Robert Temple of the Food and Drug Administration said, “My basic rule is if the relative risk isn’t at least 3 or 4, forget it.” The National Cancer Institute explains, “Relative risks of less than 2 are considered small and are usually difficult to interpret. Such increases may be due to chance, statistical bias, or the effect of confounding factors [other causes] that are sometimes not evident.” In the pie chart below those stratistically insignificant findings are highlighted in yellow.

A relative risk of less than unity (1.0) is considered by reputable researchers to be the opposite of a risk and can even signify a protective effect. These negative risks are shown below in gray.

Relative risks above 2.0 are shown in black.

Meta-analyses are not included in this chart because they lend themselves to selective inclusion of studies chosen just because they may prove the researcher's preconceived conclusion.

EPIDEMIOLOGICAL STUDIES ON SHS

Wherever possible, these figures were taken directly from the US Surgeon General's Report, EPA's 1993 Report, or from the World Health Organization's published reports.

el mahico said "I won't do it again."
I say "Too little, too late, damage is done. Anybody who can throw the "C" word out so easily on a public forum no less - or say it ever to a woman, is too rude, too socially retarded & vocabulary challenged for me to deal with." McCain lost any hope of my vote with this word - ditto for you.

AND, the Surgeon General's report got whacked in court - I had the article & document at one time, but have to find it again. It went the same way as the EPA & WHO did - proven faulty & wrong & thrown out in court. Judge Osteen's decision was on target with the EPA. (but ya see el mahico, this stuff didn't even get into the courts until the damage was done & bans were passed & the masses believed every bit of tripe the media fed them.) Your 'google searches' simply bring up what's already been spoon fed to you. Go to the sources to find what really happened.

Smoking is not just implicated in cancer, but also a host of other respiratory disorders, none of which Judge Osteen ruled against. Things such as:
1) acute respiratory illnesses in children; 2) acute and chronic middle ear diseases; 3) cough, phlegm and wheezing; 4) asthma; 5) Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (SIDS); 6) lung function in children; and 7) respiratory symptoms and lung function in adults. Even if you don't believe that ETS is a class A carcinogen, which many have proved it is, that doesn't remove the evidence of other damaging effects of ETS.

And when did the decision of a NORTH CAROLINA & tobacco-road-based judge speak for all of America? I am not familiar with other challenges that have really been successful in other states. So what does that tell you about Judge Osteen vs. the rest of American circuit judges? If, indeed, Judge Osteen's ruling is truly setting precedent, then you would expect a cascade of results to spill over into other states.

The WHO report you speak of does in fact support the harmful effects of SHS. I've read the darn thing. Spin doctors working for tobacco tried to manipulate the outcomes for their own benefit by twisting select excerpts, leading to WHO's press releases denouncing those false interpretations.

And the attacks you post on documents 10-15 years old, which I disagree with wholeheartedly, does nothing to eliminate the WEIGHT OF MOST scientific studies that support ill effects of secondhand smoke. The documents you are pulling from are hypocrisy of the greatest kind - they accuse others of cherrypicking and manipulating data, and then in turn commit the very same acts that they accuse other of. They zero in on a few papers that might support their position, and then hype those as the only exemplars of good science while reviling all others.

Michael Crichton is a NON-PRACTICING medical doctor. I believe he finished medical school, but never even took his boards as he went into another career.

Finish the statement by the representative at the NEJAM. ""As a general rule of thumb we are looking for a relative risk of 3 or more"" But the statement ends :....particularly if it is biologically implausible or if it's a brand-new finding." The PR campaign about smoking studies not meeting the litmus test of sound science or results is just that ~ PR done to try and spin results in the least-damaging way, and the best way to do that, in lieu of actually possessing sound science of your own, is to try and discredit that of your opponents. It is a court of last resort. The cry of "bad science" is NOT coming from actually within the scientific or epidemiological communities. It is precisely what has been done by the oil industry, intelligent design community, etc. to halt the advancement of scientific work. It is their explicit strategy. In fact, efforts by Phillip Morris to define characteristics of "good science" are, of course, laughed at by most in the scientific community as bogus and self-serving.

Again, take whatever political stance you will - my post is not about that. Debate in terms of civil liberties, or the American way. What yanks my chain is the distortion of good science in the attempt of private industry to make an almighty dollar.

correct, it started that way, but when Starling posts her 100-mile long "studies" disputing the overall effects of second-hand smoke, she ain't talking about just the outdoors, which is what Wombat was responding to.

Most people can agree on a middle ground with outside smoking. Do it away from public areas like parks, playgrounds, athletic fields, places folks want to keep maintained free of trash and litter, as much as possible, unless all smokers are willing to store their used butts in plastic baggies they carry around with them.

McCaskey - I only (re) posted that 100 foot long post because el mahico laid out a challenge & said that studies proved shs was hazardous. It had been posted here before, and I apologise for it's repetition - and I do realize, it's unlikely that el mahico will bother to even read any of it, or check out the links provided. Yes, this thread was about outdoor smoking rights, sorry I digressed.

Anybody who was against the smoking ban saw this one coming - predicted it here on SB & TT I believe, just another slope on the slippery hill of nonsense. The antis were determined to make it impossible to smoke anywhere at all - even on outdoor patios that could stay somewhat protected by the weather. That silly requirement they had about patios not being allowed to have WALLS? Good grief. Then they said (to push the ban through) that smokers could simply 'step outside to smoke' - and then they changed that, after the fact & now call smokers 'loiterers' & demand they move 150 feet away from the entrance. They require business owners to post signs & remove anything that resembled or could be used as an ashtray - and then they bitch about butts on the ground outside. They kept telling smokers we could smoke outside - but now, they are narrowing that 'window' the determines 'outside' more & more. Now it's extending to parks, streets, sidewalks, apartments, condos (that people paid for decades before the ban), & private homes, cars, and even so far as child custody. I have said this before - we are more likely to be exposed from 50,000 known carcinagens in our daily lives, then we are shs or even smoking. More likely to get cancer & die from the use of household cleansers (fact), cosmetics & hair dye. Now they say even plastic baby bottles are carcinagenic. Ohio is one of the worst in micro-pollutants, so as soon as you walk outside your door, your life is at risk. But I guess it makes the antis feel like they're accomplishing something great here by pushing smoking bans - gives them the sense they're actually saving somebody from death.

And, ironically-the VERY SAME politicians that were for the Coke plant (Ford, Finkbeiner, So-Lousy, Ludeman, hell-every swinging dick on council-were for the smoking ban. Hypocrite bastards! "for the public health'. Right.

wambat - site specific examples/cases where somebody became diseased or died due to shs. You can't, because it's never happened. (Unless you prove otherwise by citing specific examples that state shs as 'cause of death'). We also were not talking about smoking - but rather, shs. And whether you 'believe' it or not - it was proven to not be a class a carcinagen. Truth is, shs was declared a class a carcinagen before ANY studies were even done (then proven not to be the case). The sun is more a class a carcinagen than shs. Truth is, WHO is crooked as sin, as is the ACS (tied up in courts due to income tax fraud - had to form a sister organization to maintain it's 'non-profit' status - pays it's top executives crazy high salaries, is wealthy beyond belief - used cancer cure donation money to promote a smoking ban, etc.). The EPA & Surgeon General's reports were, I believe, done before the shs studies were done - and were also highly disputed and/or thrown out of court as faulty & tampered. OSHA's was pretty clear (I'd have to dig it up again, but will be happy to do so, per request) that shs was not the carcinagenic risk or a hazard of much concern. Protest all you want & proclaim you don't believe any of it - but the facts stand, and can be proven.

But there's no point in going through this kabuki dance over it again because the antis have made up their minds as to what their 'truth' is & nothing will convince them otherwise. Interestingly, the antis usually end up proclaiming 'Well I don't like how it smells!" as their final rebuttal. And I find it dispicable that the rights of private business owners have been taken away just because some people don't want to be around shs. The antis always had the option to NOT ENTER a bar or restaurant that had a smoking section. And yes, bars & restaurants are PRIVATE places/businesses, NOT public places - they get no funding from the govt - thus, are not 'public places'. I think it's the height of arrogance to presume to dictate what legal activities a private business may allow on their private premises. I never, ever quibbled with the laws that said "no smoking" in public places, such as libraries, govt. buildings, post offices, etc. I never bitched that "Cafe Marie" was always a non-smoking restaurant - by choise. It was the right of that business owner to make it's own rules. But hotels, restaurants, bars, etc. are NOT public places - the public is invited to come, but the public does not have to enter. The antis rights were never trampled by a restaurant or bar that had a separate smoking section (or just had smoking allowed in general). Especially when the antis never even go to most of these places anyway - still don't,dispite their claims that they had the 'right' to go.